3 ms·
From this 2010 article [1] it says charity buzz takes 20% off to cover operating expenses. So this winning bidder just wasted $122,000 that could have gone to
by olympus 13y ago
From this 2010 article [1] it says charity buzz takes 20% off to cover operating expenses. So this winning bidder just wasted $122,000 that could have gone to charity. I would rather donate directly and have all the money go to the charity and then call up Tim Cook and say, "I just improved my supply chain efficiency by 20%. Want to have coffee?" Any CEO would be crazy to turn down the opportunity to talk to me. Of course, I don't care about talking to Tim Cook, so I'll just donate my measly few bucks like any decent person and get no recognition out of it.
[1]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-27/jay-z-s-new-year-s-eve-lebron-jersey-fuel-charitybuzz-auctions.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-27/jay-z-s-new-year-s-...
- ryderm 13y agoYeah, that 20% should have a cap.
- pyoung 13y agoTo add to that, charitybuzz is a for-profit corporation. Not that I am against that, but it is worth keeping in mind as there have been a number of scandals in the past, where money from charitable non-profits gets re-directed to 'non-profit services firms' that are for-profit entities (The Wycleaf Jean scandal is a good example). In general it is good to keep your eyes open when dealing with the non-profit world. There are some very good, well meaning organizations out there, but there also a lot of organizations that solely exist as tax shelters, influence peddlers, and resume/ego boosters.